Topic: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody - page 14. (Read 4455 times)

I'm not arguing about what the law is.  I know the law and disagree with it. That is why we are protesting to begin with.  I don't think police should have firearms at all unless they are responding to a firearm.  Maybe keep it in the trunk.  Weak cops who cannot keep their weapons away from a drunk man two on 1, should not be carrying weapons at all.  

I'm not blaming cops for anyone's actions but their own.  People do bad shit in these interactions but rarely does it justify execution and its cops escalating the whole while and eventually pulling the trigger.  I hold the cops responsible for the results and ensuring the safety of everyone involved because that is their job. If the job is unreasonable then we should change the job and that is exactly the solution I'm suggesting.  I'm not following the herd either.  I've been suggesting police reform and taking away guns from beat cops   for over ten years.  
A person who uses logic with no emotions is a psychopath.  Emotions are the only way to incorporate empathy and compassion into decision making. A psychopath might think killing off all of the disabled would benefit society, but anyone with emotions and compassion would easily see the moral downside of an extreme decision like that and make the moral (not logical) argument against it.  

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.

It has nothing to do with one cop. Or 10 cops. People just had it enough. When you become president you become president of whole country. Trump simply failed there. And was just adding more shit month over month. It all get packed with covid-19 lockouts and then, ....    This riots would happen sooner or latter. And if by some miracle Trump stays president for longer and continue what he is doing there will be more and in way bigger scale.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the current President. The person in that seat has very little influence on how any cop does his job.

To me it seems that all this violence happened just because of incompetence of the country president. 4 years of bullshit has to show somehow.

The funny thing that I am noticing is that suddenly black in USA are realising they are actually "racist" feeling they are better then black people that live in Africa. All this revealings will open many yes.  

What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).

What if the cops, while shooting at the running/fleeing dude missed and the bullet shot/killed a bystander (imagine a pregnant white woman).
Whose fault is that?  How does the situation get dealt with ?

Maybe cops are trained at shooting moving target, maybe they are good at shooting, but an error is always possible, and the consequences can be dramatic.
Lethal force, should always be put in the balance and chosen only in last resort (regardless of the guy was a multi recidivist felon, child beater and drunk).

One more aspect to consider.  

If police did not stop this dangerous felon immediately..... and he used that taser to carjack someone in the parking lot, and drove off in their car, while drunk, crashed and killed someone else.  

Who's fault would that be. The officer would be charged complicit to murder and fired, for the death of the innocent person killed by the fleeing felon.
  Who's live is more important? The violent criminal? Or an innocent bystander?

Quick, you have about 3 seconds to answer that, evaluate the risk and possibility, all while fighting for your life.

They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

You seem to forget all the hundreds of cases where a verdict was handed down through the ignorance of the people within the case. Anybody can find dozens of cases that, if the defendant or his attorney had know or used some simple law or court case that they didn't use, the whole case would have changed.

The point? If all you want to do is rely on the ignorance of the people, you are way worse than the people being tried.

Yes, I forgot Mr Decker has his own law. So for your purposes I can extrapolate a wee bit further....

APD policy is in tune with established case law. And... well, that's about all it takes.  Department policies must adhere to current US and state law, not BADecker's version of law.

What conspiracy?  Oh, the BLM thing?   Take a look and you can find the truth, it can be found everywhere, you just refuse to look.

Again, the ActBlue Charities money doesn't go to the ActBlue PAC. The two divisions have different sets of accounts. Again, you linked the OpenSecrets page for the ActBlue PAC which is a separate division of ActBlue that has nothing to do with the BLM donations. The BLM donations go to the BLM Foundation via ActBlue Charities. They do not go to the PAC. The two are separate divisions of the same organization.

https://secure.actblue.com/abcharities

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=474143254

Here's where the BLM Foundation money goes to as of their latest publicly-available tax filing:


Charities aren't even allowed to donate to political campaigns if they want to retain their tax exempt status.

https://www.nonprofitexpert.com/nonprofit-questions-answers/can-nonprofits-be-involved-in-political-campaign-activity/

The cops ARE the law.  They change as the law changes.  Their entire job is literally enforcement of established law, regardless of personal feelings or beliefs. Humans doing a robots job. And things are set in stone, until they change the stone. Up until 1985, ANY felon fleeing from the law in Tennessee could be shot in the back, and they were.  That was the law.  Then in 1985, the Tennessee vs Garner case was heard by the US Supreme Court, and the law changed, now the fleeing felon must pose a risk of harm to others in order for deadly force to be used. That law changed, the cops changed with the law.

Here, you missed his one because the guy wasn't black, but same circumstances http://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/suspect-shot-dead-by-cop-after-taking-officers-stun-gun-tasing-him
   Your point is moot.

Since PopoJeff doesn't realize that the thing he is calling law, is really policy, what he says doesn't matter. The problem is that most people don't know the difference between law and policy - just like PopoJeff - so they succumb to the policy-makers in court.

Unfortunately these people have reached a point in their mental degradation where they put emotion in equivalence with or above logic. You can't use logic to prove a point to some one who thinks emotions equal facts. Emotions are the doorway through which they are conditioned to believe their feelings equal logic, opening them to be easily manipulated. On some level they know how absolutely full of shit they are, but their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to admit it. Even if they can admit it to themselves quietly, they believe the ends justify the means, and because they "feel" it is right, by virtue of their good will, their actions become logical and right. These people aren't going to stop until they end up in a bloody pile. This is the inevitable result any time logic exits the equation.

Did you REALLY just write that?   Go back and read it again.    

"It really shouldn't matter what the law says"    

Thats literally the most important thing in the world.  Cops dont make the laws, they don't write the laws. They ENFORCE the established laws. The laws that are made by your elected politicians. In a court of law, where they (and you) are judged for their actions, literally the only thing that matters is WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
   Not the kids opinions, not the opinions of any race that want special treatment.  The cops have to follow the law, and none of this shit would be happening if everyone else did to.


"They should know better"  

 Better than what? The laws that govern their operation and procedure?  The laws of the state the operate in?
I think what you're really trying to say is you don't want cops to arrest black people for their crimes anymore. You want special treatment for blacks. There's the racist side of all this mess. The race pandering.  


There's a thing called unpleasant truths vs and comforting lies.  I'll give you an example:  
   BLM is fighting for the rights of the oppressed is your comforting lie.  But the unpleasant truth is they're destroying property and lives of the innocent, at a higher rate than anyone else, while most 'woke' folks are asleep to the fact they are nothing more than a political operative, funding and being directed by the Democratic Party.  
   Here's another one.  You think justice is served in the Floyd case, by rushing the charges on Chauvin. Makes you feel good, right? That knee hold looked awful.  Unpleasant truth is, Chauvin will be found not-guilty of murder. Because most of the public is ignorant of US law.

   Unfortunately, your opinion does not matter.  Established law does.  Feelings do not overrule facts.
You're arguing yourself in a never-ending circle of stupidity.

   Tasers can incapacitate. There is always one known firearm in any encounter, the cops gun. A cop cannot be allowed to become incapacitated, otherwise he can lose control of his firearm. This particular criminal already demonstrated he's got no hesitation in feloniously taking an officer's weapon. He demonstrated nothing but criminal activity. There's no reason to believe he would not also take an officer's firearm if he was able to incapacitate the officer.

  Your problem is you keep blaming cops for the criminal's actions. And you just cant see it, or even consider being objectively reasonable, because you have been conditioned to follow the herd.

  Maybe this guy can explain a little better. I think I've mentioned all of his points, but here they are written by a professional.
  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-in-atlanta-was-tragic-but-justifiable

So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun. 

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

How was he potentially a "deadly threat"? His taser had been discharged. He was running away from the cops. Not a deadly threat to anyone. Besides, its not about what the cops have the right to do under the law, its about what they should do. Being able to legally finesse your way into murder should be discouraged among our nation's police force.

I've and idea.Why don't Black and White men...in fact men of all colors and creeds combine forces and address the REAL problem

So if the taser is so dangerous then the police officer had no business taking it out in the first place.  That means Rayshard Brooks had reason to fear for his life, defend himself and also flee.   Secondly, don't chase a man that closely if you are afraid he's about to take your life.  Thats just dumb.    Police have no concept of defensive positioning when they are allegedly so scared for their lives.  We've seen officers drive up 2 feet away from a boy they thought was threatening their lives with a toy gun. 

If you think theres danger, you'd keep a distance.   They are creating the very threat to their lives they are killing people over.  These cowards have no business being police officers.

If he was a deadly threat to others, why under Tennessee vs. Garner wouldn't the officers have the legal authority to shoot Brooks? I'd argue he was a potentially deadly threat to officers primarily, then bystanders.